The Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, features an editorial today that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term “global governance” is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.

For years we were called paranoid nutcases for warning about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty. Throughout the 1990’s people who talked about the alarming move towards global government were smeared as right-wing lunatics by popular culture and the media.

Now the agenda is out in the open and in our faces, the debunkers have no more ammunition with which to deride us.

“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman, citing the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror” as three major pretexts through which it is being introduced.

Rachman writes that “global governance” could be introduced much sooner than many expect and that President elect Barack Obama has already expressed his desire to achieve that goal, making reference to Obama’s circle of advisors which includes Strobe Talbott, who in 1992 stated, “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

Rachman then concedes that the more abstract term “global governance,” which is often used by top globalists like David Rockefeller as a veil to offset accusations that a centralized global government is the real agenda, is merely a trick of “soothing language” that is used to prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland”.

Meet Henry Kissinger Baritone

“But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on,” says Rachman. “Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

Rachman proceeds to outline what the first steps to an official world government would look like, including the creation of “A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force”.

“A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations,” writes Rachman. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

“So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government,” concludes Rachman, before acknowledging that the path to global government will be “slow and painful”.

Tellingly, Rachman concedes that “International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic,” citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. “In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters,” writes Rachman.

So there you have it – one of the world’s top newspapers, editorially led by chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, a top Bilderberg luminary, openly proclaiming that not only is world government the agenda, but that world government will only be achieved through dictatorial measures because the majority of the people are dead against it.

Will we still be called paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up, even as one of the world’s most influential newspapers admits to the fact?

Or will people finally wake up and accept that there is a globalist agenda to destroy sovereignty, any form of real democracy, and freedom itself in the pursuit of an all-powerful, self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government?

Stuxnet and Flame are not the only viruses that have been created by the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies. The Muslim Brotherhood is perhaps Washington’s most successful and dangerous virus that it has injected into the veins of the Middle East. It is an intellectual virus that destroys critical thinking among Muslims, excites their animal passions, and makes them act against their own interests.

With this virus firmly embedded in Egypt’s social and political life, Washington has guaranteed its position in the region for years to come. But by no means does the Muslim Brotherhood have anything close to a majority of popular support in Egypt. Since half the country didn’t vote in the election, the new president Mohammed Morsi only has the backing of “26% of the full electorate.”

Whatever course Morsi decides to take Egypt in the coming months, it is already clear that his government will resemble a gang even more than the one currently in power. The only difference is that Washington wanted the Muslim Brotherhood on top in Egypt, so it won.

What does Morsi’s win in Egypt mean for relations between the Western world and the Islamic world? I don’t know. But say goodbye to the Arab Spring, and say hello to the Islamist Summer. Washington’s Muslim Brotherhood is the new face of Egypt. In the past year, similar radical Islamist groups have taken over in Libya and Tunisia as the result of illegal Western interventions.

Well played, Washington, London, and Tel Aviv. Now you have your war against Islam. Now you can point at the bad guys, the rising Islamists, and tell your populations to hate and fear.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a Western Trojan Horse that has come to power in Egypt thanks to the indispensable support of the CIA-MI6-Mossad brotherhood.

9/11 didn’t do enough to stir the passions and subdue the Western mind under a dark cloud of terror. The rise of Islamists in the wake of the CIA’s Arab Spring might do the trick. The West has the jitters now. The Muslim Brotherhood is in power. Oooooh, so scary. “Oh my God, not the Muslim Brotherhood. O’ Government Master, please keep me safe from those bad guys. I’ll do anything you want.”

The success of the Muslim Brotherhood at the polls is a big win for the Israeli government, which was secretly supporting Morsi all along.

How does Israel win? It can identify the Muslim Brotherhood as a powerful enemy of Israel that’s been democratically elected by Egyptian voters, and continue to portray Arabs as anti-Jewish extremists. Israel’s PR machine was spinning into gear even before the votes were counted. Israel was like, “Let’s go Muslim Brothers. Win, baby, win. Win so we can have war.”

After helping Washington to put Islamic extremists in power across North Africa, Israel can say to the world, “Look, we’re surrounded by our enemies, the rising Islamic extremists. Help! Help! I’m drowning! I’m drowning! Help!” And Washington will respond, “Oh, my dear Israel, you poor thing, here are more weapons for your new acts of aggression. Start new wars, as much as you like. We’re right here behind you, and we’re not going to let you drown.”

Washington’s new Islamist pawns in power in the Arab world could become very unpopular and an anti-Islamist coalition may rise and defeat them. Or not. The victory of the Muslim Brotherhood shows that America’s last days in the heartland of Arabia are still very far away.

The electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and of the Salafists in Egypt (January 2012) is hardly surprising. The decline brought about by the current globalization of capitalism has produced an extraordinary increase in the so-called “informal” activities that provide the livelihoods of more than half of the Egyptian population (statistics give a figure of 60%).

And the Muslim Brotherhood is very well placed to take advantage of this decline and perpetuate its reproduction. Their simplistic ideology confers legitimacy on a miserable market/bazaar economy that is completely antithetical to the requirements of any development worthy of the name. The fabulous financial means provided to the Muslim Brotherhood (by the Gulf states) allows them to translate this ideology into efficient action: financial aid to the informal economy, charitable services (medical dispensaries etc.).

In this way the Brotherhood establishes itself at the heart of society and induces its dependency. It has never been the intention of the Gulf countries to support the development of Arab countries, for example through industrial investment. They support a form of “lumpen development” – to use the term originally coined by André Gunder Frank – that imprisons the societies concerned in a spiral of pauperization and exclusion, which in turn reinforces the stranglehold of reactionary political Islam on society.

This would not have succeeded so easily if it had not been in perfect accord with the objectives of the Gulf states, Washington and Israel. The three close allies share the same concern: to foil the recovery of Egypt. A strong, upright Egypt would mean the end of the triple hegemony of the Gulf (submission to the discourse of Islamization of society), the United States (a vassalized and pauperized Egypt remains under its direct influence), and Israel (a powerless Egypt does not intervene in Palestine).

The rallying of regimes to neo-liberalism and to submission to Washington was sudden and total in Egypt under Sadat, and more gradual and moderate in Algeria and Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood – which is part of the power system – should not be considered merely as an “Islamic party”, but first and foremost as an ultra reactionary party that is, moreover, Islamist. Reactionary not only concerning what are known as “social issues” (the veil, sharia, anti-Coptic discrimination), but also, and to the same degree, reactionary in the fundamental areas of economic and social life: the Brotherhood is against strikes, workers’ demands, independent workers’ unions, the movement of resistance against the expropriation of farmers, etc.

The planned failure of the “Egyptian revolution” would thus guarantee the continuation of the system that has been in place since Sadat, founded on the alliance of the army high command and political Islam. Admittedly, on the strength of its electoral victory the Brotherhood is now able to demand more power than it has thus far been granted by the military. However, revising the distribution of the benefits of this alliance in favour of the Brotherhood may prove difficult.

The first round of the presidential election on 24 May was organised in such a way as to achieve the objective pursued by the system in power and by Washington: to reinforce the alliance of the two pillars of the system – the army high command and the Muslim Brotherhood – and settle their disagreement (which of the two will be in the forefront). The two candidates “acceptable” in this sense were the only ones to receive adequate means to run their campaigns. Morsi (MB: 24%) and Chafiq (Army: 23%). The movement’s real candidate – H.Sabbahi – who did not receive the means normally granted to candidates, allegedly only got 21% of the vote (the figure is questionable).

At the end of protracted negotiations it was agreed that Morsi was the “winner” of the second round. The assembly, like the president, was elected thanks to a massive distribution of parcels (of meat, oil and sugar) to those who voted for the Islamists. And yet, the “foreign observers” failed to observe a situation that is openly ridiculed in Egypt. The assembly’s dissolution was delayed by the army, which wanted to give the Brotherhood time to bring discredit upon itself by refusing to address social issues (employment, salaries, schools and health!).

The system in place, “presided” over by Morsi, is the best guarantee that lumpen-development and the destruction of the institutions of the state, which are the objectives pursued by Washington, will continue. We will see how the revolutionary movement, which is still firmly committed to the fight for democracy, social progress and national independence, will carry on after this electoral charade.

Occupy’s Pledge to FIGHT BACK

We Didn’t Start the Class War

The 1% wreck our economy, kill our jobs, seize our homes, assault our rights, destroy the environment, and sentence us to lives of debt and war. For years, we have petitioned our governments for change without redress and have fought tirelessly to elect politicians who only betray us. In a world where the 1% have usurped democracy and politicians refuse to serve the people, the people have but one choice—to fight back!

The relentless class war against the 99% must end. We’ve been deceived our whole lives into believing the only way to create change is by voting, but now we’re learning there’s another way. A revolution for real democracy is underway, and it falls on each and every one of us to fight together for our common future. We will cast the vote of resistance. We will take direct action to shut this broken system down and build a better world that works in the interest of all people, everywhere.

Will you help us wage resistance?

I pledge to come out in the streets when Occupy calls for a day of action.

I pledge to attend at least one meeting with my local Occupy group.Click Here to find one in your area

I pledge to help promote #occupy news and actions via social media.

I pledge to donate what I make in one hour to an Occupy-related project.Click Here for our curated list of places to donate

I pledge to dump my bank and join a credit union.Click Here to find one in your area

I pledge to start an affinity group to occupy something.This can be just about anything. Like a park, a farm, defending a foreclosed home, or holding a sit-in at your town hall or school. You might only need a half dozen or so dedicated people. Issue demands if you like, but don’t go home until they’re met. You can even use blockading to make it extra hard for them to remove you. Remember: Occupying is a militant nonviolent tactic meant to assert control over physical space by reclaiming it for a new purpose while disrupting the ability of your adversary to use that space, thus forcing recognition of your cause. You don’t need a permit any more than Martin Luther King Jr. needed permission to hold sit-ins at lunch counters. This is the very meaning of civil disobedience, but it also means you’ll be risking arrest so you should consider seeking legal counsel beforehand. How much does change mean to you?

Why should I promise to fight? Because the 1% wreck our economy, kill our jobs, seize our homes, assault our rights, destroy the environment, and sentence us to lives of debt and war. For years, we have petitioned our governments for change without redress and have fought tirelessly to elect politicians who only betray us. In a world where the 1% have usurped democracy and politicians refuse to serve the people, the people have but one choice—to fight back!

to create change, because it works better than voting and is way more fun. Read the pledge to learn how to use some of these tactics.

“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.” – Howard Zinn

Share this:

Like this:

Quote

“The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”
― Gloria Steinem
"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
- John F. Kennedy (Commencement address, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, June 11, 1962)
The last of the very few decent Presidents America ever had